It is not possible for everyone to handle loving more than one person. But some people are miserable when they're restricted to loving only one person. It's an individual question, not one that can be generalized with accuracy.

It's certainly possible for men to do, and in fact, it's evolutionarily advantageous for them. It's not evolutionarily advantageous for women, however. At all. Notice how the rise of feminism coincided with the fall of polygamy.

if you can love two people at once, why not three? if three, why not four? and where do you draw the line at where love ends exactly - if four, why not fifty or more? i think that the more people are involved, whether two or twenty, the less special and unique, the more generalised and meaningless becomes the connection.

"It's not evolutionarily advantageous for women, however. At all. " Wow, we have a biologist in the house. Biologically speaking: Women want a lover with good DNA to impregnate them, a strong man with characteristics indicative of high levels of testosterone. However, they want a man with lower testosterone to raise that child, as he would make a better parent. Biologically speaking, that sounds like more than one person to me. But hey, you're the expert over there, eh?

it's impossible- love, i believe, is sparked in the human brain, but requires massive amounts of time to develop. i think it requires dedicating one's thought process to that person, integrating them into their everyday lives until the point where it becomes that each experience is not the same without them. polyamory is an excuse to not be monogamous; those who advocated it will never admit that they are wrong, however, and if it makes them happy- and if polyamoric love is what fulfills them- then who is to say.

This presupposes that it is possible to be 'in love' with one person. Then it begs the question, "What is it to be in love"? Answer this last one and you could be the sage of the ages.

why does it matter the number? love is a feeling shared between two people. when you will drop your best interests for another and crave to be around them you are in love with them. When you are most vulnerable to them and sometimes they hurt you, or anger you, or disgust you, but you forgive them because love won't allow you to react any other way. and this is true for however many people make you feel that way. can you spend the time needed with a number of people to keep that love alive and real and a connection as opposed to sex or some other benefit occasionally? that is up to you. I love many people i have romantic relationships with. i still love people that i do not continue to do so with, i love my family, i love my cat, i love my parents. I try to appreciate and love as many people as i can and it is only beneficial.

Isn't it as simple as: it is possible because plenty of people *are*? And if you've never been.. and never are... than maybe it just isn't possible *for you* Time is the constraint on numbers. Many of us love two parents, multiple siblings etc. growing up and find time to form intimate bonds within those family structures. The same is true for a three, four-partner household. But if you're talking 20, then the logistics interfere more than the principles just as they would with 20 siblings. Parents who have 3 kids aren't accused of doing so in order to avoid being fully available/supportive parents for any them. The idea that loving two people rather than one means you're scared/avoiding intimacy is bizarre.

"if you can love two people at once, why not three? if three, why not four? and where do you draw the line at where love ends exactly" Even for a Poly type personality there is a limit. Do google for Monkeysphere and you'll find a cracked article about human social limits. While humorous, it's actually based on actual research. There's a link in the article to the source. Professor Robin Dunbar puts the human social limit at around 150 and the intimate limit around 12. Beyond that, people are conceptualized more like statistics than people.